Lütfiye Kaya Cicerali, Assoc. Prof. Forensic Psychology, Istanbul Galata University (Principle Researcher); Nesrin Duman, Assoc. Prof. Forensic Psychology, Istanbul 29 Mayis University; Eyyüb Ensari Cicerali, Assoc. Prof. Social Psychology, Istanbul Galata University
Introduction
The integrity and effectiveness of investigative interviewing remain critical concerns in criminal justice. Traditional accusatorial interrogation methods, such as the Reid technique, have been widely implemented but criticized for relying on psychological pressure, confrontational tactics, and deception—factors known to increase the risk of false confessions and erode public trust. In contrast, rapport-based, information-gathering approaches such as the Méndez method emphasize cooperation, transparency, and procedural fairness, aligning with international human rights norms and the United Nations Convention Against Torture.
While existing studies suggest that rapport-based approaches can elicit accurate information without coercion (Alison et al., 2013; Meissner et al., 2023), far less is known about how individual vulnerability factors such as personality traits and social anxiety interact with interrogation style to influence outcomes. Research shows that higher neuroticism and social avoidance can heighten stress reactivity and impair decision-making under pressure, potentially making individuals more susceptible to suggestion or compliance during interrogations. Likewise, traits such as extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness may shape interpersonal engagement and willingness to share information (Gudjonsson, 1988; Klaver et al., 2008; Kassin et al., 2010; Perkins et al., 2010).
Given that interrogation contexts often involve heightened stress and perceived authority, understanding these personality and social anxiety variables as potential vulnerability factors is vital. Such insights can guide both policy—by identifying individuals at higher risk of unreliable statements—and practice, by informing tailored interviewing strategies that safeguard accuracy and rights. This research seeks to explore the effectiveness of the Méndez method vis-à-vis the Reid method.
Hypotheses:
H1: Participants exposed to the Méndez method will report higher perceived fairness and ethicality and lower perceived stress than those exposed to the Reid method.
H2: The Méndez method will not yield significantly less accurate or complete information than the Reid method.
H3: Personality traits (neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, conscientiousness) and social anxiety/avoidance will moderate the relationship between interrogation type and information provision.
Methods
Participants & Design
A total of 44 participants were randomly assigned to either a Reid or Méndez interrogation condition. Participants experienced one of two simulated crime scenarios—lab instrument theft or club money theft—and were subsequently interviewed using the assigned interrogation style. The design included one between-subjects factor (interrogation type: Reid vs. Méndez) and multiple dependent variables, with personality and social anxiety measures as covariates.
Measures
Dependent variables included perceived fairness, perceived stress, and perceived ethicality. Information provision was coded into “no informative answer,” “wrong info,” “missing info,” or “right info.” Confession-related responses were coded as “rejection,” “partial confession and crime-exculpatory strategy,” or “downright confession.” Covariates included the Big Five personality traits (neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, conscientiousness) and Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale (fear and avoidance subscales).
Analyses
Given violations of homogeneity of variance for several dependent variables (Levene’s p < .001 for fairness and ethicality), Brown–Forsythe robust ANOVA was used. Where covariates were included, Quade’s nonparametric ANCOVA tested effects, and Chi-square tests examined categorical “information-provision” and “confession” outcomes.
Results
Perceived Fairness, Stress, and Ethicality
Levene’s tests indicated heterogeneity of variance for fairness, F(1, 42) = 16.97, p < .001, and ethicality, F(1, 41) = 14.053, p < .001, but not stress, F(1, 42) = 1.79, p = .188. Brown–Forsythe ANOVAs revealed that the Méndez method (M = 33.00, SD = 3.96) was rated significantly fairer than the Reid method (M = 20.59, SD = 8.97), F(1, 42) = 35.20, p < .001, η² = .456. Similarly, ethicality scores were higher for Méndez (M = 34.41, SD = 2.44) compared to Reid (M = 24.73, SD = 6.73), F(1, 42) = 40.26, p < .001, η² = .512. Stress differences were not significant, F(1, 42) = 3.07, p = .087, η² = .068, though Reid participants reported slightly higher mean stress (M = 23.95, SD = 8.64) than Méndez (M = 19.82, SD = 6.92).
Confession Patterns and Information Disclosure
Chi-square analyses showed no significant association between interrogation type and confession category. For lab instrument theft, χ²(2, N = 21) = 0.88, p = .646; for club money theft, χ²(2, N = 23) = 1.22, p = .543; and for the combined dataset, χ²(2, N = 44) = 0.85, p = .655. Similarly, no significant association emerged between interrogation type and information category: lab instrument theft, χ²(3, N = 21) = 1.72, p = .633; club money theft, χ²(2, N = 23) = 2.51, p = .285; and combined, χ²(3, N = 44) = 3.69, p = .297.
Moderation by Personality and Social Anxiety/Avoidance
Quade nonparametric ANCOVAs found no significant effects of interrogation type on the level of information disclosed when controlling for individual differences in neuroticism, F(1, 42) = 2.28, p = .138; extraversion, F(1, 42) = 1.20, p = .280; openness, F(1, 42) = 2.29, p = .137; agreeableness, F(1, 42) = 2.28, p = .138; conscientiousness, F(1, 42) = 1.92, p = .174; Liebowitz social anxiety, F(1, 42) = 2.32, p = .135; and Liebowitz avoidance, F(1, 42) = 1.75, p = .193. All follow-up pairwise comparisons were non-significant (ps > .13).
Discussion
The results provide partial support for the hypotheses. Consistent with H1, the Méndez method was rated as significantly fairer and more ethical than the Reid method, with large effect sizes, and showed a nonsignificant trend toward lower stress. These findings are in line with prior research (Walsh & Bull, 2010) showing that rapport-based interviewing fosters perceptions of procedural justice and legitimacy, which may in turn enhance cooperation without coercion.
H2 was also supported: there were no significant differences between methods in the accuracy or completeness of information provided, nor in confession outcomes. This aligns with studies indicating that non-accusatorial approaches can match or exceed the evidentiary yield of confrontational styles while avoiding their attendant risks.
H3 was not supported: personality traits and social anxiety/avoidance did not significantly moderate the effect of interrogation style on information provision. While this might reflect genuine robustness of the methods across individual differences, it is also possible that the sample size limited power to detect moderation effects. Nonetheless, the inclusion of these covariates reflects an important step toward integrating psychological vulnerability assessment into interrogation research.
Conclusion
This study provides initial experimental evidence that the Méndez method enhances perceived fairness and ethicality without compromising informational yield, suggesting that non-accusatorial interviewing can be both rights-respecting and operationally effective. These findings are important because they demonstrate that practitioners do not need to rely on confrontational or coercive tactics to obtain accurate and complete information. Moving forward, the results can inform training curricula, encouraging police and forensic interviewers to adopt rapport-based, evidence-supported practices. In applied settings, this research can guide agencies in refining policy, strengthening safeguards for vulnerable individuals, and improving public trust by promoting interviewing models that align with international human-rights standards.
Acknowledgements
This article is based upon work from COST Action CA22128 (ImpleMéndez), supported by European Cooperation in Science and Technology (COST).
Bibliography
Alison, L. J., Alison, E., Noone, G., Elntib, S., & Christiansen, P. (2013). Why tough tactics fail and rapport gets results: Observing Rapport-Based Interpersonal Techniques (ORBIT) to generate useful information from terrorists. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 19(4), 411–431. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034564
Gudjonsson G. H. (1988). Interrogative suggestibility: its relationship with assertiveness, social-evaluative anxiety, state anxiety and method of coping. The British journal of clinical psychology, 27(2), 159–166. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8260.1988.tb00764.x
Klaver, J. R., Lee, Z., & Rose, V. G. (2008). Effects of personality, interrogation techniques and plausibility in an experimental false confession paradigm. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 13(1), 71–88. https://doi.org/10.1348/135532507X193051
Kassin, S. M., Drizin, S. A., Grisso, T., Gudjonsson, G. H., Leo, R. A., & Redlich, A. D. (2010). Police-induced confessions: Risk factors and recommendations. Law and Human Behavior, 34(1), 3–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-009-9188-6
Meissner, C. A., Kleinman, S. M., Mindthoff, A., Phillips, E. P., & Rothweiler, J. N. (2023). Investigative interviewing: A review of the literature and a model of science-based practice. In D. DeMatteo & K. C. Scherr (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of psychology and law (pp. 582–603). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197649138.013.34
Perkins, A. M., Cooper, A., Abdelall, M., Smillie, L. D., & Corr, P. J. (2010). Personality and defensive reactions: fear, trait anxiety, and threat magnification. Journal of Personality, 78(3), 1071–1090. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00643.x
Walsh, D., & Bull, R. (2010). What really is effective in interviews with suspects? A study comparing interviewing skills against interviewing outcomes. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 15(2), 305–321. https://doi.org/10.1348/135532509X463356
